How many testers are needed to assure the usability of medical devices?

References

• Consumers Union. Medical devices: problems on the rise. Consumer Rep 2007;72(12):53
   Google Scholar
• Hegde V. Role of human factors/ usability engineering in medical device design. In: Reliability and Maintainability Symposium; 28 – 31 January 2013; Orlando, FL, USA p. 1-5
   Google Scholar
• Lang AR, Martin JL, Sharples S, Crowe JA. The effect of design on the usability and real world effectiveness of medical devices: a case study with adolescent users. Appl Ergon 2013;44(5):799-810
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vincent CJ, Li Y, Blandford A. Integration of human factors and ergonomics during medical device design and development: it’s all about communication. Appl Ergon 2014;45(3):413-19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin L, Vicente KJ, Doyle DJ. Patient safety, potential adverse drug events, and medical device design: a human factors engineering approach. J Biomed Inform 2001;34(4):274-84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heneghan C, Thompson M. Rethinking medical device regulation. JRSM 2012;105(5):186-8
   Google Scholar
• Martin J, Norris BJ, Murphy E, Crowe JA. Medical device development: the challenge for ergonomics. Appl Ergon 2008;39(3):271-83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Money A, Barnett J, Kuljis J, et al. The role of the user within the medical device design and development process: medical device manufacturers’ perspectives. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011;11(1):15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rakitin R. Coping with defective software in medical devices. Computer 2006;39(4):40-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ANSI/AAMI. HE75: human factors engineering-design of medical devices. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; Arlington, VA, USA: 2009
   Google Scholar
• ExpertRECALL. Third quarter 2012: quarterly recall index. ExpertRECALL; Indianapolis, IN, USA: 2012
   Google Scholar
• Heneghan C, Thompson M, Billingsley M, Cohen D. Medical-device recalls in the UK and the device-regulation process: retrospective review of safety notices and alerts. BMJ Open 2011;1:1
   Google Scholar
• BfArM. Available from: www.bfarm.de/
   Google Scholar
• Medical Device Control Office. Recalls and alerts. Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; Hong Kong: 2012
   Google Scholar
• Martin J, Barnett J. Integrating the results of user research into medical device development: insights from a case study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012;12(1):74
   Google Scholar
• US FDA. Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration. Staff - Applying Human Factors and Usability Engineering to Optimize Medical Device Design. US FDA; Silver Spring, MD, USA: 2011
   Google Scholar
• IEC. IEC 62366: 2007 Medical devices – Application of usability engineering to medical devices. CEN; Brussels, Belgium: 2007
   Google Scholar
• US FDA. Unsafe and ineffective devices approved in the EU that were not approved in the US. US FDA; Department of Health & Human Services; New York, NY, USA: 2012
   Google Scholar
• Borsci S, Macredie RD, Barnett J, et al. Reviewing and extending the five-user assumption: a grounded procedure for interaction evaluation. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Int 2013;5:20
   Google Scholar
• Borsci S, Martin J, Barnett J. A grounded procedure for managing data and sample size of a home medical device assessment. In: Kurosu M, editor. Human-computer interaction. Human-centred design approaches, methods, tools, and environments. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; NY, USA: 2013. p. 166-75
   Google Scholar
• Lewis JR. Sample sizes for usability studies: additional considerations. Hum Factors 1994;36(2):368-78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis JR. Sample sizes for usability tests: mostly math, not magic. Interactions 2006;13(6):29-33
   Google Scholar
• Turner CW, Lewis JR, Nielsen J. Determining usability test sample size. In: Karwowski W, editor. International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors. CRC Press; Boca Raton, FL, USA: 2006. p. 3084-8
   Google Scholar
• Virzi RA. Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: how many subjects is enough? Hum Factors 1992;34(4):457-68
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bias RG, Mayhew DJ. Cost-justifying usability: an update for the internet age. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers; San Francisco, CA, USA: 2005
   Google Scholar
• Virzi RA. Streamlining the design process: running fewer subjects. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting ACM; Santa Monica, CA, USA; 1990. p. 291-4
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen J. Severity ratings for usability problems. Nielsen Norman Group; CA, USA: 1995
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen J. Why you only need to test with 5 users. Nielsen Norman Group; CA, USA: 2000
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen J. How many test users in a usability study?. Nielsen Norman Group; CA, USA: 2012
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen J, Landauer TK. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In: Proceedings of the INTERACT ’93 and CHI ’93 Conference on Human factors in computing systems ACM; Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 1993. p. 206-13
   Google Scholar
• Borsci S, Federici S, Mele ML, et al. The bootstrap discovery behaviour model: why five users are not enough to test user experience. In: Alkhalifa EM, Gaid K, editors. Cognitively informed intelligent interfaces: systems design and development. IGI GLobal press; Hershey, PA, USA: 2012. p. 258-79
   Google Scholar
• Borsci S, Londei A, Federici S. The bootstrap discovery behaviour (BDB): a new outlook on usability evaluation. Cogn Process 2011;12(1):23-31
   Google Scholar
• Caulton DA. Relaxing the homogeneity assumption in usability testing. Behav Information Tech 2001;20(1):1-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faulkner L. Beyond the five-user assumption: benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behav Res Methods 2003;35(3):379-83
   Google Scholar
• Schmettow M. Heterogeneity in the usability evaluation process. In: 22nd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Culture, Creativity, Interaction; Liverpool; UK; 2008. p. 89-98
   Google Scholar
• Schmettow M. Sample size in usability studies. Commun ACM 2012;55(4):64-70
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spool J, Schroeder W. Testing web sites: five users is nowhere near enough. In: CHI ‘01 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems ACM; Seattle, WA, USA; 2001. p. 285-6
   Google Scholar
• Woolrych A, Cockton G. Why and when five test users aren’t enough. In: Proceedings of IHM-HCI 2001 Conference; Vanderdonckt J, Blandford A, Derycke A Cépaduès Editions Toulouse, FR, USA; 2001. p. 105-8
   Google Scholar
• Lewis JR. Evaluation of procedures for adjusting problem-discovery rates estimated from small samples. Int J Hum-Comput Int 2001;13(4):445-79
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertzum M, Jacobsen NE. The evaluator effect: a chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. Int J Hum-Computer Int 2003;15(4):183-204
   Google Scholar
• Fishman GS. Monte Carlo: concepts, algorithms, and applications. Springer; NY, USA: 1995
   Google Scholar
• Lewis JR. Validation of Monte Carlo estimation of problem discovery likelihood (Tech. Rep. No. 29.3357). IBM; Raleigh, NC, USA: 2000
   Google Scholar
• Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 1979;7(1):1-26
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox J. An R and S-Plus companion to applied regression. SAGE; California, CA, USA: 2002
   Google Scholar
• US FDA. Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff - Total Product Life Cycle: Infusion Pump - Premarket Notification. 2010. Available from: www.fda.gov/medicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm206153.htm
   Google Scholar
• Ericsson KA, Simon HA. Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA, USA: 1984
   Google Scholar
• Ericsson KA, Simon HA. Verbal reports on thinking. In: Faerch C, Kasper G, editors, Introspection in second language research. Multilingual Matters; Clevedon, New Zealand: 1987. p. 24-53
   Google Scholar
• Borsci S, Kurosu M, Federici S, Mele ML. Computer systems experiences of users with and without disabilities: an evaluation guide for professionals. CRC Press; Boca Raton, FL, USA: 2013
   Google Scholar